[5E] Un-hate my hate of classes

Siphonaptera

up to no good
Validated User
A flying monster? Why wouldn't a wizard cast Fly on the party fighter(s)? What if the Fighter(s) have magic items that give flight?
Or a bow and arrow!

Yeah, the fighter could have had a little more utility outside combat, but the fact that a terrible DM can include things that can't be overcome without magic in a game where the fighter does not have magic doesn't make the worthless in general.

Well, this thread has gone full 'if the class isn't the best then it is absolutely useless all the time' as is tradition.
 
Last edited:

Nelzie

Registered User
Validated User
Or a bow and arrow!

Yeah, the fighter could have had a little more utility outside combat, but the fact that a terrible DM can include things that can't be overcome without magic in a game where the fighter does not have magic doesn't make the worthless in general.

Well, this thread has gone full 'if the class isn't the best then it is absolutely useless all the time' as is tradition.
Yeah... it really should be about how the class based RPG is around creating and protecting niches. There used to be tables where at "Name Level" characters would receive followers that just starting showing up, because of hearing the tales of this or that list of amazing deeds that the heroe(s) embarked upon.

A Fighter? He/she would receive a small army! Sometimes they'd have flying mounts!

A Wizard? Maybe an apprentice or two, but not to much to take away the fact that an ARMY showed up to follow the fighter to their own demise, if that was where things went.

A Rogue? Maybe a few bandit/sneak thieves?

I'll have to break out my old 2nd Edition Books and flip through that. I believe it was in the BECMI/RC D&D books as well. "Name Level" meant things that GREATLY enhanced the reason(s) for taking a class like "Fighter".

Sure, a wizard can magically build a thing, over many, many days with enough rest, but a fighter can put his/her troops to work and have a pretty solid fortified area, with solid patrols, etc., etc. put together much quicker! These are or at least were... important things too.
 

macd21

Registered User
Validated User
Or a bow and arrow!

Yeah, the fighter could have had a little more utility outside combat, but the fact that a terrible DM can include things that can't be overcome without magic in a game where the fighter does not have magic doesn't make the worthless in general.

Well, this thread has gone full 'if the class isn't the best then it is absolutely useless all the time' as is tradition.
Fighters aren’t absolutely useless, they’re just a poorly designed class.
Edit: and blaming the GM is a poor defense of the class. The GM shouldn’t have to cater so much to make up for poor game design.
 
Last edited:

Victim

Registered User
Validated User
Yeah... it really should be about how the class based RPG is around creating and protecting niches. There used to be tables where at "Name Level" characters would receive followers that just starting showing up, because of hearing the tales of this or that list of amazing deeds that the heroe(s) embarked upon.

A Fighter? He/she would receive a small army! Sometimes they'd have flying mounts!

A Wizard? Maybe an apprentice or two, but not to much to take away the fact that an ARMY showed up to follow the fighter to their own demise, if that was where things went.

A Rogue? Maybe a few bandit/sneak thieves?

I'll have to break out my old 2nd Edition Books and flip through that. I believe it was in the BECMI/RC D&D books as well. "Name Level" meant things that GREATLY enhanced the reason(s) for taking a class like "Fighter".

Sure, a wizard can magically build a thing, over many, many days with enough rest, but a fighter can put his/her troops to work and have a pretty solid fortified area, with solid patrols, etc., etc. put together much quicker! These are or at least were... important things too.
Considering how often low level characters would end up defeating adventure sites with a small army worth of enemies IME, I always had a hard time seeing the Fighter's army as actual high level feature.
 

cmcdonald

Registered User
Validated User
The "GM will fix it" answer has never satisfied me. It's a platitude that's thrown around because it's hard to argue with and easy to counter with "oh, you've just had terrible GMs/you are a terrible GM". The GM's job is hard enough without having to babysit those party members whose characters have fewer abilities of their own. Or trying to figure out how to prevent spellcasters from melting the whole plot with some cleverly-used spells.

In another system, having next to no abilities besides fighting is a choice. In D&D, the choice has been made for you when you picked fighter as your class.
Yes, that's kind of the point, by choosing the fighter you are intentionally choosing a simple class with few special abilities. If you don't want that, you're not supposed to pick the fighter.

The GM has to take some responsibility for crafting fun scenarios that engage all his players, and not crafting scenarios that intentionally forclose any non-magical solution, if he has players with no magical abilities. Just as if the players were playing a college of wizards, the GM would be kind of a jerk if they keep making dungeons full of anti-magic fields.
 

Morty

Registered User
Validated User
Yes, that's kind of the point, by choosing the fighter you are intentionally choosing a simple class with few special abilities. If you don't want that, you're not supposed to pick the fighter.
Unless I want to play a trained martial artist and weapon-user without spellcasting abilities who isn't largely a decoration outside of combat and runs on auto-pilot inside it.
 

Siphonaptera

up to no good
Validated User
Fighters aren’t absolutely useless, they’re just a poorly designed class.
Edit: and blaming the GM is a poor defense of the class. The GM shouldn’t have to cater so much to make up for poor game design.
Null magic zones are a thing, so should we not blame the GM if they make an entire dungeon a null magic zone?
What if they choose not to give out magic weapons or allow characters to buy silvered weapons and then use werewolves?

At some point the DM has a responsibility to be aware that they might be using something that nullifies several classes altogether and that doesn't mean one class, which is perfectly capable of contributing to 99% of the published content without needing the ability to fly or a magic weapon, is poorly designed. If the DM chooses not to include magic and makes magic a requirement the blame falls on them.
 

macd21

Registered User
Validated User
Null magic zones are a thing, so should we not blame the GM if they make an entire dungeon a null magic zone?
What if they choose not to give out magic weapons or allow characters to buy silvered weapons and then use werewolves?

At some point the DM has a responsibility to be aware that they might be using something that nullifies several classes altogether and that doesn't mean one class, which is perfectly capable of contributing to 99% of the published content without needing the ability to fly or a magic weapon, is poorly designed. If the DM chooses not to include magic and makes magic a requirement the blame falls on them.
It’s really not. If a GM made the whole setting a null magic zone, or made the entire campaign about werewolves but didn’t include appropriate weapons you’d have a point.

Such gameplay elements are specifically included to effectively allow the GM to ‘remove’ some of the PCs’ ‘tools’ (spells, normal weapons) to provide a challenge for them to surmount. They’re meant to shake things up for a session or two. But with Fighters, the GM isn’t removing anything, because the Fighter doesn’t have tools to remove. It’s just their default.

A GM has to go out of his way to pander to a Fighter in a way that just isn’t true of other classes. And even then, the Fighter is probably going to be overshadowed by another character who can do the same thing, only better.

The fighter just isn’t the class to pick if you want to contribute out of combat.
 

cmcdonald

Registered User
Validated User
Unless I want to play a trained martial artist and weapon-user without spellcasting abilities who isn't largely a decoration outside of combat and runs on auto-pilot inside it.
You can be a monk or a rogue. But yeah, D&D 5e's class system doesn't cater to that particular desire. It doesn't seem to have affected the popularity of the fighter, which is the most popular class by some margin. Though I object to the loaded "decoration" language, which I think comes from a fundamental disagreement in philosophy within this thread between those who think contribute means "have some clear mechanical advantage over other classes" vs. those to whom contribute means "be able to engage with the imaginary world created by the DM in some way".
 

Siphonaptera

up to no good
Validated User
A GM has to go out of his way to pander to a Fighter in a way that just isn’t true of other classes.
That's a bunch of baloney in any campaign other than a high magic campaign where the Fighter (and Barbarian and Rogue) don't have access to magic items because the DM is terrible. In any other campaign they are fine even if they aren't the best at specific things.
 
Top Bottom